Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread

[Col.Steiner]

Sounds like a brilliant idea that should have been implemented already. I don't know how many semi-usless bodies in uniform I have met while merely in the reserves that could be given a C7 and put to work. A soldier wounded on tour deserves and commands some dignity and respect and it isn't too hard to rectify the problem by giving them desk-duty or some kind of training to pass on knowledge, which is what the forces desperately need at the moment. I have to admit that the way the forces treats its wounded (mentally or physically) is one negative that concerned me when applying.

 

[tomahawk6]

Sounds good. Its a win win for the soldier as well as for the Forces.

 

[simysmom99]

It's coming.  This is a great big government with so many hands in the pot.  If it was just up to the Military, it would  have been implemented many months ago.  All the hard work and lobbying is paying off.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

And to be clear, not a single soldier that has been injured in AStan has been forced to discharge - indeed I know of one soldier who was convinced to sign a re-engagement so that he could continue to receive the benefits offered to a serving member.  The regulations are slowly catching up to the reality, as well as the sentiment.

 

[Takeniteasy]

I know something is coming out very soon, I do know that the policy will encompass not only those who have become injured on tours and duty but those who have gained their disability through illness and accidents. I have been working with the Soldier On program since the start and one of the goals is to make sure the whole Defence Team is taken care of!

 

[284_226]

I know something is coming out very soon, I do know that the policy will encompass not only those who have become injured on tours and duty but those who have gained their disability through illness and accidents.

That very topic has been the elephant in the room for some time now.  In other threads, some people have been quite vocal against the concept of disabled members remaining in uniform.  Has there been a change of heart, now that even the CDS has acknowledged the situation needs to be addressed?

 

[dapaterson]

Helping wounded soldiers is a key part of the promise made to anyone who joins.  But we need to have fit, capable soldiers.  There is a whole "Defence Team" - we could have  soldiers unable to meet Universality of Service transferred into civilian roles in DND, whether in the training system or elsewhere. 

But if we show we can and will accommodate anyone, we open the door to anyone and everyone to join.  How can we refuse people enrollment who are not fit field if we protect and promote others who are not fit field?  And when a key limiting factor for our force structure is the number of Reg Force PYs, filling them with those who are unable (but not unwilling) to deploy or be employed in the harder parts of the trade means greater stress and strain on the others still in.  It's unfair to the rest, and it's consumption of a scarce resource (Reg F PYs) that delivers little combat capability.

So re-jig some structures to provide public service employment with portability of benefits.  Ensure a robust transition program is in place.  Provide a clear policy on medical / rehab leave.  Get VAC to provide services starting a month before release to ensure continuity of care (and for every case where they fail, start docking performance pay from everyone in VAC in receipt of it).  But don't tie up Reg F PYs with pers who will be unable to recover sufficiently to meet U of S.

Just my (unpopular) 2c.

 

[the 48th regulator]

That very topic has been the elephant in the room for some time now.  In other threads, some people have been quite vocal against the concept of disabled members remaining in uniform.  Has there been a change of heart, now that even the CDS has acknowledged the situation needs to be addressed?

Kidney stones, and wounds acquired on operation are two different things wouldn't you agree?

dileas

tess

 

[284_226]

Kidney stones, and wounds acquired on operation are two different things wouldn't you agree?

Are they?  Under existing regs - both conditions, if they prevent deployability, will end a serviceperson's career.

 

[284_226]

So re-jig some structures to provide public service employment with portability of benefits.  Ensure a robust transition program is in place.  Provide a clear policy on medical / rehab leave.  Get VAC to provide services starting a month before release to ensure continuity of care (and for every case where they fail, start docking performance pay from everyone in VAC in receipt of it).  But don't tie up Reg F PYs with pers who will be unable to recover sufficiently to meet U of S.

All valid points, save for the last sentence.  It's clear that something is coming that will allow individuals to violate UoS, but still continue to serve.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Are they?  Under existing regs - both conditions, if they prevent deployability, will end a serviceperson's career.

One aquired do to service, other due to genetics/lifestyle.....

You tell us....

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

I'm "one of those people from the other threads". Still am.

No change of heart here, there are ways to look after these people without putting our deployability at risk and reducing the number of fit UoS deployable personnel who will, of course, ultimately be the ones who end up doing the gritty overseas work and deployments. Without an increased Reg F PY capability of posn numbers to match those unfit UoS being resigned -- eventually the CF will see those who are fit and deployable on sick leave and stress leave themselves. And, I think that dapaterson has expressed my thoughts exactly.

Accomodation is one thing -- but build in extra posns for those we accomodate or transfer them to civ service with retention of benefits.

Otherwise, we really are reducing our fit manning levels, but still expecting those reduced numbers of fit pers to accomplish the lions share and burden of deployed ops. Their families, I'm sure, will love that given that they already require 12 months of workups away from home to deploy for 6 months. I see rising divorce rates and increased released rates amongst the fit UoS pers if this comes to pass wihout a necessary increase in funded RegF PY to match those being retained who are unfit.

My prediction? It'll all look good for 5 years ... til the fit people doing all the deployments and field work back in Canada say "enough already ..." and get the hell out. Cripes, there's enough of them doing so now without this further decrease in deployable personnel; because, that's exactly what it is -- a decrease in the number of deployable personnel we have. Each of those positions filled by unfit UoS personnel ... mean one less position that we can recruit a fit for deployment or field person into.

Kind of how FRP looked good ... until the CF figured out just how badly that came back to bite them in the ass when all most of their Cpls were 40 years old and everyone above the rank of Sgt was eligible for retirement within 5 years of each other.  :

 

[284_226]

One aquired do to service, other due to genetics/lifestyle.....

You tell us....

It's never as clear cut as one might think at first glance.  If it were, the US Army wouldn't be operating lithotripters in Iraq.

You can substitute any malady - was there a contributing factor related to military service?

 

[the 48th regulator]

It's never as clear cut as one might think at first glance.  If it were, the US Army wouldn't be operating lithotripters in Iraq.

You can substitute any malady - was there a contributing factor related to military service?

hehehe,

Can I punch your ticket for your ride on our coat tails?

dileas

tess

 

[284_226]

I'm "one of those people from the other threads". Still am.

No change of heart here, there are ways to look after these people without putting our deployability at risk and reducing the number of fit UoS deployable personnel who will, of course, ultimately be the ones who end up doing the gritty overseas work and deployments. Without an increased Reg F PY capability of posn numbers to match those unfit UoS being resigned -- eventually the CF will see those who are fit and deployable on sick leave and stress leave themselves. And, I think that dapaterson has expressed my thoughts exactly.

Again, valid points.

Accomodation is one thing -- but build in extra posns for those we accomodate or transfer them to civ service with retention of benefits.

Agreed.  I'd prefer the former, but the latter would work if the legislation has teeth.

Otherwise, we really are reducing our fit manning levels, but still expecting those reduced numbers of fit pers to accomplish the lions share and burden of deployed ops. Their families, I'm sure, will love that given that they already require 12 months of workups away from home to deploy for 6 months. I see rising divorce rates and increased released rates amongst the fit UoS pers if this comes to pass wihout a necessary increase in funded RegF PY to match those being retained who are unfit.

Agreed.  All things remaining equal, the ones who are deployable would be forced to deploy more.  It's simple math.

My prediction? It'll all look good for 5 years ... til the fit people doing all the deployments and field work back in Canada say "enough already ..." and get the hell out. Cripes, there's enough of them doing so now without this further decrease in deployable personnel; because, that's exactly what it is -- a decrease in the number of deployable personnel we have. Each of those positions filled by unfit UoS personnel ... mean one less position that we can recruit a fit for deployment or field person into.

There's two schools of thought on that.  What about the number of people who are choosing not to enroll or not to re-engage because they realize "Hey, we're being shot at now - I'd like to make sure my future is secure if one of those bullets ends up in my body"?  You have to admit - the press has a field day with stories of those who return from overseas with debilitating injuries.  That has to play a factor in how we're viewed strictly as an employer, and how we treat our injured personnel.

Kind of how FRP looked good ... until the CF figured out just how badly that came back to bite them in the *** when all most of their Cpls were 40 years old and everyone above the rank of Sgt was eligible for retirement within 5 years of each other.  :

Yup, and we're still feeling the effects of it, even 12 years later.  I know, my ex-wife took FRP back in 1995.

It's clear that a blanket "if you're not deployable, you're not employable" policy won't work.  It's equally clear that retaining every single member who is faced with a breach of UoS is also an impossibility.

Where's the happy medium?

From the looks of things, now is the time to start talking about it - whether you're a deployable member, or you're an injured member - because both are going to be equally affected by any upcoming change in policy.

 

[armyvern]

...

Yup, and we're still feeling the effects of it, even 12 years later.  I know, my ex-wife took FRP back in 1995.

It's clear that a blanket "if you're not deployable, you're not employable" policy won't work.  It's equally clear that retaining every single member who is faced with a breach of UoS is also an impossibility.

Well, 90% of the people I know personally who are realeasing attribute it to that which you have outlined above ... in that "now that we've gone to war they finally feel it appropriate to man us and equip us like they should have been doing all along... well ... "fuck 'em if this is the only time we're good enough for their attention." The others I know, have just got their TI, are pensionable, are getting older, and some even feel as if they're freeing up a spot for the young up&comers who they feel can contribute more given the CFs current op tempo. Then, I know some who are getting out because they can't get overseas (which is my personal dilema these days being pensionable myself on 12 Jan & seriously considering pulling the pin due to "feeling useless" even though I still love my job) ... and feel they'd rather feel "useless" on civvie street.

There's two schools of thought on that.  What about the number of people who are choosing not to enroll or not to re-engage because they realize "Hey, we're being shot at now - I'd like to make sure my future is secure if one of those bullets ends up in my body"?  You have to admit - the press has a field day with stories of those who return from overseas with debilitating injuries.  That has to play a factor in how we're viewed strictly as an employer, and how we treat our injured personnel.

I have yet to meet a person (or even hear from one/about one) who has released for your above reason. It must be a very very small school.

 

[284_226]

hehehe,

Can I punch your ticket for your ride on our coat tails?

Seriously, are you suggesting that your winger who can't manage to dump enough water down his throat to compensate for the heat of summer in Afghanistan, and consequently develops kidney stones as a result, is any less protected/entitled than you as a member injured as a result of a direct combat injury?  Or, I dunno...someone involved in a simple traffic accident in a Duty Area?

We're all supposed to be on the same team, with equal portions of unlimited liability, right?

 

[284_226]

Well, 90% of the people I know personally who are realeasing attribute it to that which you have outlined above ... in that "now that we've gone to war they finally feel it appropriate to man us and equip us like they should have been doing all along... well ... "frig 'em if this is the only time we're good enough for their attention." The others I know, have just got their TI, are pensionable, are getting older, and some even feel as if they're freeing up a spot for the young up&comers who they feel can contribute more given the CFs current op tempo. Then, I know some who are getting out because they can't get overseas (which is my personal dilema these days being pensionable myself on 12 Jan & seriously considering pulling the pin due to "feeling useless" even though I still love my job) ... and feel they'd rather feel "useless" on civvie street.

Yup, I've heard all of those reasons for pulling the plug.  I've also heard of young folks refusing their IE25 (while on VIE) because they've started families, and they plain and simple don't want to leave their families in a lurch should something serious happen to them.  I know the old adage "If the CF wanted you to have a family, they'd have issued you one", but that doesn't reflect reality.

I'm genuinely sorry that you're considering pulling the pin due to "feeling useless".  I've never felt that way, across three different MOCs, so I can't empathize with you.  If nothing else, I've always felt that at the absolute least, I've passed on valuable experience to those coming up behind me - regardless of whether that experience was gained in a ship tied up alongside in Halifax, or in a dirt hut in Somalia.

I have yet to meet a person (or even hear from one/about one) who has released for your above reason. It must be a very very small school.

It's playing a factor (albeit a small one) in retention, but talk to someone who is currently involved in recruiting.  They'll tell you the question is getting asked frequently by those looking to enroll.  Our recruits are getting older, better educated, and more often than not, have already started families.  They're asking these questions, and the answers aren't always there for them.  That could be the difference between coming through our door, or heading off to greener pastures in Alberta (for example).  This is venturing fairly far off the original topic, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[armyvern]

"If the CF wanted you to have a family, they'd have issued you one"

I haven't heard that in years. I can tell you that the families in these parts are very near to the top of the priority list these days. It's not like it was when I joined.

 

[284_226]

"If the CF wanted you to have a family, they'd have issued you one"

I haven't heard that in years. I can tell you that the families in these parts are very near to the top of the priority list these days. It's not like it was when I joined.

I haven't heard it in years, either...unless it's been a winky-eyed joke between old-timers like us.  The families are extremely well taken care of these days.  My wife and I had a lengthy discussion the other day after she picked up the Trident and discovered the MFRC in Shearwater offered a "Mommy and Me" fitness class much cheaper than the one that they offer downtown.  I'm quite certain that after one child, two and half years of marriage, and two and a half years of living together before that, my wife couldn't list one-tenth of the services that the MFRC provides.  Well, she couldn't a week ago, anyways. 

What I was referring to was the treatment of injured members, and the amount of press given to them (deservedly) regarding problems with the system.  People don't remember the news story about the member's wife and kids doing a video conference from thousands of miles away on Christmas Eve.  They remember the fella who had to appeal three times to VAC for something or other.